York Man Indicted For Possession Of A Firearm

HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Ernest Dyer, age 44, of York, Pennsylvania, was indicted by a federal grand jury for possessing a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony.

According to U.S. Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment alleges that Dyer had a firearm in his possession in his home in York, Pennsylvania, when he was arrested on a local warrant on July 7, 2017. During the investigation, agents and detectives seized a Hi-Point .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun, loaded with ten .40 caliber cartridges in the magazine.

The case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Northern York County Regional Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor is prosecuting the case.

This case was brought as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership (“VCRP”), a district wide initiative to combat the spread of violent crime in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the VCRP consists of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies whose mission is to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes with firearms.

Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The maximum penalty under federal law is 10 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

# # #